Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's an excellent idea. I orginally read in the NY Post that several US senators wanted to have mandatory drug testing for UI recepients. I guess the idea has trickled down to the social services. It's a wise idea for both groups of recepients. Use the money for what it was intended for not drugs.
Funny how the senators are quick to go after people who were working and lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and as an after thought they now want to test people who have been abusing the system for years.
Its just the most horrible idea ever. It never ceases to amaze me how little outrage there seems to be at ideas that just errode freedom a little more. In my opinion random drug testing unless a person is involved in a safety oriented job should always require a warrant based on probable cause. An employer here in Canada has absolutely no right to drug test anyone ever and even asking someone to do so is going to get you sued and you will lose for sure. The only question will be how big the award will be.
I think Police officers should be checked on a regular basis, airline pilots, truck drivers and a lot of other jobs that involve public saftey. These employees would be tested based on the law not on the whim of someone that has no overriding interest in what is an invasion of privacy.
No McJob should ever require it nor should any social program.
Can you imagine here in Canada. Well we are not going to pay for your medical any more because you smoke weed. You drink too much so your on your own. Your blood is full of transfats, buzz off and die.
Freedom is precious and all governments of all types will always try to remove freedoms from the people. That is just the nature of governments. We must always resist any attempt to reduce or remove freedoms from the people and if we do not, maybe we do not deserve the freedoms that our fathers fought and died for.
As hometown gal native to suffolk county back in the day we had dirt roads, it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when the geniuses who voted yes on this one see the tax bill that comes along with this cockamaimy scheme.
THIS PLAN BROUGHT TO YOU BY DRUG TESTING LOBBY LOOKING FOR A GOV'T TEAT.
Wake up folks! And especially educate yourselves more about the nature of addiction. Come up with better policies to handle them, I'll listen.
Depends upon where you are. And as for criminalizing the behaviors, we never had to worry about this stuff before. We're criminalizing behaviors because they are becoming more and more prevalent. For instance, we have criminalized possession and distribution of LSD. That couldn't have BEEN a crime before LSD was invented! The more "vices" get invented, the more we have to criminalize them. And actually the truth is much less difficult to comprehend... people do this stuff more often because they don't believe they will get caught, and they also don't feel that they have a higher power to whom they will have to answer for all of their earthly sins / crimes even if the earthly authorities do not catch them.
We take religion (oh sorry, Christianity... all other religions are okay) out of government, school, etc... and then wonder why we even have to ask about mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. If people had a real sense of right vs. wrong, they wouldn't damage their bodies with drugs whether they were legal or not. I'm 31 years old and can legally purchase cigarettes and alcohol, but I don't purchase nor consume any such products because they are bad for me and therefore it's wrong to use them. If America now had the same basis in morality upon which it was conceived in the late 1700's, we wouldn't have these problems. Look it up for yourself. Look up the history of America and see what problems we really had. Sure, we fought wars... but were they as frequent as the wars we fight these days? In the last 60 years, we've been in a double-digit number of different "theaters" for various different wars. You find me another 60-year time period where that was the case.
That was all over the place, but the best I can figure is that you believe vice should be illegal because without punishment here on earth people who don't share your religious beliefs might go about their lives doing as they please without fear of eternal judgment.
Your decision to not put harmful things in your body (hope you're also watching HFCS and trans-fats) is one you made, but should we be invading the privacy of others and possibly putting them in prison because they didn't make the same decision as you? How is the cost and social upheaval associated with imprisoning 1 out of every 100 people not considered a greater problem than a personal decision to do partake in vice?
That was all over the place, but the best I can figure is that you believe vice should be illegal because without punishment here on earth people who don't share your religious beliefs might go about their lives doing as they please without fear of eternal judgment.
Your decision to not put harmful things in your body (hope you're also watching HFCS and trans-fats) is one you made, but should we be invading the privacy of others and possibly putting them in prison because they didn't make the same decision as you? How is the cost and social upheaval associated with imprisoning 1 out of every 100 people not considered a greater problem than a personal decision to do partake in vice?
We're talking about welfare here, remember?
I would actually FAVOR the legalization of all presently illegal drugs, on the grounds that we have the right to do what we want to do, with our own lives and our own bodies....... if it were a guarantee that they would never be used in a manner which stepped on other people's rights. Unfortunately, that will NEVER be the case. If we legalize pot and tell people "but you can only smoke it in the privacy of your own home", who are we fooling? People will be smoking pot in droves. We could legalize drugs that tend to make people belligerent, like crack, but then there'd be an extreme uptick in domestic violence. I favor the rights of the individual... when they don't step on my rights or someone else's... or come out from the realm of "private". You want to do your thing in the privacy of your own home, and you will harm nobody else nor make anyone else experience it in any way with any of their senses... go and do what you want.
The problem is MISSION CREEP. People will ALWAYS push the envelope. If drugs were legalized and it became much easier to get them, it would become much easier for people to use them in public, or drive while under the influence, or give their kids a contact high from smoking pot in their presence, etc.
But when it comes to welfare, again, it'd be someone's right to do what he wishes to his body, stepping on MY right to determine what is done with my money. When was the last time you sent someone else whom you didn't know, out to the grocery store with money but no list, and said "Get me the groceries I want!"? Even if you gave the person a list, good luck! The truth is, we don't do that stuff because we know that nobody is going to be able to spend our money on things we want, for us, better than we can. But yet we entrust the government to put our money to good use? Puh-LEEEZE. "Good use" does not include drugs. You want my money, I have the right to tell you what to do with it. You don't want me telling you what to do with it, then STARVE TO DEATH and stop wasting oxygen... or pull yourself up by the bootstraps and earn your own money.
I will take a drug test. I get FS and Medicaid I would be more than happy to do so. I know I am drug free so no problem. It's idiotic that we force people to take drug tests before we give them jobs but don't when we are giving them FS and Medicaid and TANF.
There is cheating done through the system but using the money they receive for drugs is very minor. They don't get that much to afford a drug habit. Clinton's welfare reforms helped get rid of those types of problems. Those with drug habits usually have other financial alternatives which of course are usually illegal.
There lies the problem, those who want to restrict things that they disapprove of don't realize just how things are being done at that level.
I have not heard anyone talking about getting the addicted any help as far as rehab either. Do any of you realize that cutting someone off of food stamps who has a serious drug habit is not going to change anything? All that they will do is resort to a more illegal venue, which I might add will cost more in tax dollars (think jail, lawyers ect)
I will take a drug test. I get FS and Medicaid I would be more than happy to do so. I know I am drug free so no problem. It's idiotic that we force people to take drug tests before we give them jobs but don't when we are giving them FS and Medicaid and TANF.
The underlining reasons that people are required to take drug test are:
1. safety, if you handle heavy machinery or responsible for someone elses lives
2. Screening, there are some companies that use drug testing to screen out certain applicants
3. Backroom deals, companies make deals with testing companies and or insurance companies who make separate deals with certain testing facilities.
Now I ask you what reason would you want to test welfare receipants other than personal reasons? As I stated in a previous post in the long run it will cost more to test and not provide help.
This is really a question ONLY for the taxpayers of LI. It's their money, there is no promise of welfare to anyone. The taxpayers have every right to choose to provide welfare and to decide if they want to ensure that criminals aren't the recipients of their generosity.
There lies the problem, those who want to restrict things that they disapprove of don't realize just how things are being done at that level.
I have not heard anyone talking about getting the addicted any help as far as rehab either. Do any of you realize that cutting someone off of food stamps who has a serious drug habit is not going to change anything? All that they will do is resort to a more illegal venue, which I might add will cost more in tax dollars (think jail, lawyers ect)
Not if it became an executable offense and we didn't have levels upon levels of appeals and whatever. If you're caught using drugs, you're caught using drugs... and you're dead. Simple. No lawyers, nothing. The evidence is there. Have your trial by jury if you must, but the jury will see the same thing. Frankly, if you use drugs, you're of no positive value to society anyway.
Oh wait, America will never do that?
Doesn't change the fact that it would be a much quicker and more cost-effective way to improve the American gene pool, and keep pretty much all of those presently not using drugs from ever STARTING using drugs and becoming addicted.
And as for those of you who would attack me for being "intolerant", "closed-minded", "drugophobic" or whatever other wimpy liberal weenie word you can throw at me to make yourself seem more than a screaming mouse, I ask you this: Can YOU come up with anything quicker and more cost-effective? (I'm not interested in what you think is "better". Just give me "quicker" and "more cost-effective" for ridding our society of its drug problem, which naturally trickles down to welfare recipients.)
This is really a question ONLY for the taxpayers of LI. It's their money, there is no promise of welfare to anyone. The taxpayers have every right to choose to provide welfare and to decide if they want to ensure that criminals aren't the recipients of their generosity.
Actually it started in the Pennsylvania forum. Some moderator moved it.
Also, since many forms of welfare are federal benefits, not state benefits, we are all affected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
